(09-21-2014 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nope, I definitely do not speak English. So thanks for keeping things civil.
My initial comment was responding to George calling out your comment regarding planning what play should have been called on fourth down. He actually agreed with what I said and must also have agreed that I speak and understand English well enough to craft a counterpoint. George's comment highlighted a portion of text that was taken out of context and which changed the topic to planning rather than play calling.
I apologize for misconstruing your comment with what was implied in the following reply, but thanks for taking things so well.

I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt.

I was getting frustrated because we had already gone through two cycles of your putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and my trying to correct that, and your rejecting those corrections and continuing to insist that I had said something different from what I did say. It wasn't your initial misconstrual that annoyed me, but your continued insistence on it. I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly annoying, probably because it is done so frequently on the political boards.

What I was trying to do was describe the decision process that should have taken place during the timeout. Bailiff should make the decision--we're in four-down territory or we will kick on fourth down. Then the OC should make a play call consistent with that decision. Everything here was consistent with the decision to kick on fourth down, so it would be a reasonable presumption that was the decision. But I don't know that, and made no claim to know that. If the decision was that we would go for it on fourth down, then the third down call should have been one that a) had a reasonable chance to pick up the first down, and b) would be likely to produce positive yards in any event (unlike an incomplete short or long pass) in order to make the 4th down easier. And probably one that would run some clock or force a timeout call. I was trying to explain how the fourth down choice would affect the third down play call. Sorry you didn't pick up on that nuance that nuance first time round.

Could you provide a post number for the post of George's that you referenced in your reply?

(09-21-2014 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nope, I definitely do not speak English. So thanks for keeping things civil.
My initial comment was responding to George calling out your comment regarding planning what play should have been called on fourth down. He actually agreed with what I said and must also have agreed that I speak and understand English well enough to craft a counterpoint. George's comment highlighted a portion of text that was taken out of context and which changed the topic to planning rather than play calling.
I apologize for misconstruing your comment with what was implied in the following reply, but thanks for taking things so well.

I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt.

I was getting frustrated because we had already gone through two cycles of your putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and my trying to correct that, and your rejecting those corrections and continuing to insist that I had said something different from what I did say. It wasn't your initial misconstrual that annoyed me, but your continued insistence on it. I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly annoying, probably because it is done so frequently on the political boards.

What I was trying to do was describe the decision process that should have taken place during the timeout. Bailiff should make the decision--we're in four-down territory or we will kick on fourth down. Then the OC should make a play call consistent with that decision. Everything here was consistent with the decision to kick on fourth down, so it would be a reasonable presumption that was the decision. But I don't know that, and made no claim to know that. If the decision was that we would go for it on fourth down, then the third down call should have been one that a) had a reasonable chance to pick up the first down, and b) would be likely to produce positive yards in any event (unlike an incomplete short or long pass) in order to make the 4th down easier. And probably one that would run some clock or force a timeout call. I was trying to explain how the fourth down choice would affect the third down play call. Sorry you didn't pick up on that nuance that nuance first time round.

Could you provide a post number for the post of George's that you referenced in your reply?

Post: #415

RE: Rice-ODU gamethread
(Today 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.
Today 08:37 AM

Like I said, my initial comment was regarding what George said, which took your comment a bit out of context. My intention was not to put words in your mouth, but I think things got a bit muddled in the process. I did actually understand your argument the first time, but it was a bit confusing after your reply to my comment, which, like I said, was more a reply to what George was highlighting. And this board has had a history of making assumptions about Bailiff's decisions with little to no evidence to back them up, hence why I took issue.

Hey guys:

Here's what I've said in this thread:

First:

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

And then a little bit later:

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.

I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

Thanks George.

It is a bit funny to see how quickly things can be misread by those of us who frequent the board. I attribute most of the mistakes I make to primarily browsing/replying on my phone. I'm pretty sure it's all due to auto-correct.

fun to follow egg heads debating. Just as convoluted as the spin room :)

(09-21-2014 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.
I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.
I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

But you are. As I said, the decision to kick on fourth down if we didn't gain any yards could have already been decided. We also could have called for a short third down pass, but Driphus went for the long ball. I don't remember who was open and the exact routes run by all the receivers, but there is no observational evidence about what decisions were made, and when by the coaches, other than that they called a play on third down and a field go was kicked after it.
We can disagree with whether the third down routes were good/bad, or if we should/shouldn't have kicked it given the results, but I don't see any evidence that suggests our decision to kick based on our result of the play was/wasn't decided before the third down play call.

No, I'm not saying anything about how our decision was actually made. And none of what you are saying is relevant to the point that I am making. Please read and understand what I actually write before launching into your own counterpoints. What I'm saying is what SHOULD have happened, not what actually did or did not. I don't know what actually happened, and am not offering any comment on that one way or the other. I just know what should have happened. Do you not speak English?

And by the way, one thing that definitely did not happen is Driphus's going for the long ball, since Stehling was at QB due to Driphus's earlier injury.

Technically correct. But in the context of this thread, when you say "what SHOULD have happened", in light of the general tone of the thread and the critical nature of the board in general, it is likely to be inferred that you don't believe that it did happen.

I accept that you weren't making that judgment because you just said clearly that you didn't want us to assume that (in your response, not the initial post). But you didn't clarify that in your first "SHOULD have" post. I assumed, based on the general nature of the thread, including posts made by folks other than you, that you meant "it SHOULD have happened, and it didn't".

Your points well taken, but without clarification, it's fairly open to being misunderstood. (By people who do understand English, but who also use context for clues when intent isn't clear)

(09-21-2014 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nope, I definitely do not speak English. So thanks for keeping things civil.
My initial comment was responding to George calling out your comment regarding planning what play should have been called on fourth down. He actually agreed with what I said and must also have agreed that I speak and understand English well enough to craft a counterpoint. George's comment highlighted a portion of text that was taken out of context and which changed the topic to planning rather than play calling.
I apologize for misconstruing your comment with what was implied in the following reply, but thanks for taking things so well.

I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt.

I was getting frustrated because we had already gone through two cycles of your putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and my trying to correct that, and your rejecting those corrections and continuing to insist that I had said something different from what I did say. It wasn't your initial misconstrual that annoyed me, but your continued insistence on it. I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly annoying, probably because it is done so frequently on the political boards.

What I was trying to do was describe the decision process that should have taken place during the timeout. Bailiff should make the decision--we're in four-down territory or we will kick on fourth down. Then the OC should make a play call consistent with that decision. Everything here was consistent with the decision to kick on fourth down, so it would be a reasonable presumption that was the decision. But I don't know that, and made no claim to know that. If the decision was that we would go for it on fourth down, then the third down call should have been one that a) had a reasonable chance to pick up the first down, and b) would be likely to produce positive yards in any event (unlike an incomplete short or long pass) in order to make the 4th down easier. And probably one that would run some clock or force a timeout call. I was trying to explain how the fourth down choice would affect the third down play call. Sorry you didn't pick up on that nuance that nuance first time round.

Could you provide a post number for the post of George's that you referenced in your reply?

Post: #415

RE: Rice-ODU gamethread
(Today 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.
Today 08:37 AM
H
Like I said, my initial comment was regarding what George said, which took your comment a bit out of context. My intention was not to put words in your mouth, but I think things got a bit muddled in the process. I did actually understand your argument the first time, but it was a bit confusing after your reply to my comment, which, like I said, was more a reply to what George was highlighting. And this board has had a history of making assumptions about Bailiff's decisions with little to no evidence to back them up, hence why I took issue.

Fair enough. Message board misunderstanding. Those never happen.

(09-21-2014 01:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

It's situational. There are times when you do one, times when you do another. We seem too often to zig when we should zag and zag when we should zig.

sure. a decisionto run clock or to hurry up iearly in the second pr fourth quarter has to be made without knowing at that point if you would prefer more time or less tme on the clock at the end of thenhalf. So th decision to hurry or burn should be related to the competitive situation on the down at hand. if you think you cancatch them napping, quick sanp. we tried this without success. aking the extra tme might let the dfense settle, but it also hels the offense.

at the end f both halves, I wish we had burned more clock, but that is jus how it works out. it is still the D's rspnsibility to stop them. We did not lose this game on clock manage,emt or Fg kicking. we lost it on D, and a lot of that was our D being set for a pass and getting a run, and vice-versa. who calls the defensive alignments?

This year Wilder gave Taylor more responsibility in changing the play at the line of scrimmage. The right alignment could have been called and Taylor recognized this and changed the play. He doesn't always get it right but he is pretty good at reading defenses.

(09-22-2014 08:53 AM)benny_t Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

It's situational. There are times when you do one, times when you do another. We seem too often to zig when we should zag and zag when we should zig.

sure. a decisionto run clock or to hurry up iearly in the second pr fourth quarter has to be made without knowing at that point if you would prefer more time or less tme on the clock at the end of thenhalf. So th decision to hurry or burn should be related to the competitive situation on the down at hand. if you think you cancatch them napping, quick sanp. we tried this without success. aking the extra tme might let the dfense settle, but it also hels the offense.

at the end f both halves, I wish we had burned more clock, but that is jus how it works out. it is still the D's rspnsibility to stop them. We did not lose this game on clock manage,emt or Fg kicking. we lost it on D, and a lot of that was our D being set for a pass and getting a run, and vice-versa. who calls the defensive alignments?

This year Wilder gave Taylor more responsibility in changing the play at the line of scrimmage. The right alignment could have been called and Taylor recognized this and changed the play. He doesn't always get it right but he is pretty good at reading defenses.

True. It's hard to be in the right defense when the QB comes to the line with a choice of two or three plays and can adjust to what he sees.

(09-21-2014 02:31 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  fun to follow egg heads debating. Just as convoluted as the spin room :)

Oh yes. That is what makes the Parliament such a guilty pleasure. We argue an OP's main points, tangents, tangents of tangents, good faith, quotation accuracy and just about anything! We are as tenacious as we want out athletic teams to be!

(09-22-2014 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 08:53 AM)benny_t Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

It's situational. There are times when you do one, times when you do another. We seem too often to zig when we should zag and zag when we should zig.

sure. a decisionto run clock or to hurry up iearly in the second pr fourth quarter has to be made without knowing at that point if you would prefer more time or less tme on the clock at the end of thenhalf. So th decision to hurry or burn should be related to the competitive situation on the down at hand. if you think you cancatch them napping, quick sanp. we tried this without success. aking the extra tme might let the dfense settle, but it also hels the offense.

at the end f both halves, I wish we had burned more clock, but that is jus how it works out. it is still the D's rspnsibility to stop them. We did not lose this game on clock manage,emt or Fg kicking. we lost it on D, and a lot of that was our D being set for a pass and getting a run, and vice-versa. who calls the defensive alignments?

This year Wilder gave Taylor more responsibility in changing the play at the line of scrimmage. The right alignment could have been called and Taylor recognized this and changed the play. He doesn't always get it right but he is pretty good at reading defenses.

True. It's hard to be in the right defense when the QB comes to the line with a choice of two or three plays and can adjust to what he sees.

What a novel idea. This is what bothers me about our meerkat or from this year our quasi-meerkat. We get to the line and look toward the bench while the D line kneels and rests, the linebackers look for their girlfriends, and who knows what the safeties do. Meanwhile the clock runs down to 6 sec or so and we start the snap count and run the play. The defense in those 6 seconds can shift and we have zero time to respond with a different play. It appears basically we are calling a play not based on what defense may actually be in place just before the snap but based on what we think the defense will line up in.

(09-21-2014 04:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.
I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

But you are. As I said, the decision to kick on fourth down if we didn't gain any yards could have already been decided. We also could have called for a short third down pass, but Driphus went for the long ball. I don't remember who was open and the exact routes run by all the receivers, but there is no observational evidence about what decisions were made, and when by the coaches, other than that they called a play on third down and a field go was kicked after it.
We can disagree with whether the third down routes were good/bad, or if we should/shouldn't have kicked it given the results, but I don't see any evidence that suggests our decision to kick based on our result of the play was/wasn't decided before the third down play call.

No, I'm not saying anything about how our decision was actually made. And none of what you are saying is relevant to the point that I am making. Please read and understand what I actually write before launching into your own counterpoints. What I'm saying is what SHOULD have happened, not what actually did or did not. I don't know what actually happened, and am not offering any comment on that one way or the other. I just know what should have happened. Do you not speak English?

And by the way, one thing that definitely did not happen is Driphus's going for the long ball, since Stehling was at QB due to Driphus's earlier injury.

Technically correct. But in the context of this thread, when you say "what SHOULD have happened", in light of the general tone of the thread and the critical nature of the board in general, it is likely to be inferred that you don't believe that it did happen.

I accept that you weren't making that judgment because you just said clearly that you didn't want us to assume that (in your response, not the initial post). But you didn't clarify that in your first "SHOULD have" post. I assumed, based on the general nature of the thread, including posts made by folks other than you, that you meant "it SHOULD have happened, and it didn't".

Your points well taken, but without clarification, it's fairly open to being misunderstood. (By people who do understand English, but who also use context for clues when intent isn't clear)

When I mean, "It should have happened but didn't," I will say, "It should have happened but didn't." And my irritation was that even after I had clarified (by your own reckoning) the point I was making (if clarification were indeed necessary), he continued to maintain that I had said something else.

My point was exactly the opposite--that it probably did happen that way because that is what should happen.

I was really anticipating (probably my mistake) the kind of criticism of Bailiff that says, "It was great that we gambled by throwing long on third down, but then we turned conservative on fourth down." The only point I was trying to make is that the decision to throw on third down was the decision to attempt the field goal on fourth down.

I noted a somewhat similar situation against SMU a couple of years ago (not entirely the same, I think it was slightly further out and it was third and maybe 20, not third and 4) where we threw deep, picked up the first down, and scored. But that was with Bagwell, and we don't have Bagwell any more. And I don't think the percentages are quite the same without him. So you might even say that this was one more instance of "square peg, round hole" thinking.